If at first some people might have been inclined to think that women coming forward with stories 30 years after the fact are just after a celebrity's money, today -- and not only with #MeToo in general but the testimonies around Cosby's case in particular -- that's impossible to claim now.

Now that there is a conviction even after a mistrial. That LA Times link will show you that even as Cosby racked up success after success throughout his career of decades, he was still insecure enough -- evil enough? -- to have to drug and rape women when he could have likely got them without force.

Read the timeline, and none of Cosby's achievements will ever seem the same to you.

So the question is: are Bill Cosby's routines or sit-coms still funny? He even had a comedy routine based on the hypothetical story of using "Spanish Fly" to seduce women. And many of the women in the lawsuits are white women -- is that the issue? Reading that time-line will make you sick and it should likely make it not possible for you to ever find Cosby funny again.

Cosby was liked by many for his critique of the dysfunctionality of some blacks that whites didn't feel they could properly say themselves. There was his famous speech dubbed "the Pound Cake speech" in which he said blacks should stop blaming discrimination for their problems and look at poor parenting:

"These are people going around stealing Coca-Cola. People getting shot in the back of the head over a piece of pound cake! Then we all run out and are outraged, 'The cops shouldn't have shot him.' What the hell was he doing with the pound cake in his hand? I wanted a piece of pound cake just as bad as anybody else. And I looked at it and I had no money. And something called parenting said if you get caught with it you're going to embarrass your mother. Not you're going to get your butt kicked. No. You're going to embarrass your mother. You're going to embarrass your family."

But a young black comedian wasn't buying any of this, as you can see from the LA Times timeline:

Hannibal Buress, during a stand-up performance in Philadelphia that goes viral, renews the allegations against Cosby in a sketch about what he saw as Cosby's hypocritical crusade against hip-hop culture and the unraveling of the black family. Cosby had made a speech at the NAACP's commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the landmark Brown vs. Board of Education segregation case. “Bill Cosby has the ... smuggest old black man public persona that I hate," Buress says. "He gets on TV: 'Pull your pants up, black people, I was on TV in the '80s. I can talk down to you because I had a successful sitcom.' Yeah, but you rape women, Bill Cosby, so turn the crazy down a couple notches. ... I guess I want to just at least make it weird for you to watch 'Cosby Show' reruns.” Within weeks, both Netflix and NBC had scrapped projects with Cosby, stand-up performances were canceled around the country, and TV Land pulled "The Cosby Show" from its lineup.

I remember very distinctly when Cosby's second record, "I Started Out as a Child" came out in 1964. I was 8 and my brother was 6. We must have listened to this record a hundred times and we thought it was hilarious. It was a time when there was no Internet of course, our television was very limited in our house, but radio and records could always be played. Comedy records were very popular at the time. We had the routines memorized down pat, and I can still remember Cosby's jokes even today. "Stop on a dime, give ya nine cents change."

For some reason, when I think of listening to these albums, I picture a dark room and my brother in a crib. But it must have been some other record because at age 6, even being sickly as a young child as an RH baby, and even with my parents not getting us new beds until we moved out of our house in Niagara Falls, he wouldn't have likely been in a crib at that age.

In any event, I can still picture a darkened room with the two of us listening to the routine about the "Giant" -- Cosby's father, coming home drunk and going to bed. He wasn't a rowdy drunk, but a sentimental drunk. He came home and stumbled around and hummed a tune. I can still remember my little brother imitating him perfectly, drawling "Hello, my dear..." and then the CHINK of the father's pants falling on the floor, and the little kids (in Cosby's routine) saying "The giant...has change!" We didn't have a father like this, but a grandfather like this. And we didn't have to steal his change because he gave us a quarter for "Sunday candy" -- but only after church.

I always thought these earlier albums were a lot funnier than any of the sit-coms he was in -- which I didn't watch, finding them contrived, like a lot of sit-coms.

I don't think at that age and time (1964) we had any black friends or even knew any black people. That's how it was in the 1960s. So that's why Bill Cosby's record seemed more about "urban" or "poor" or "childhood" than "black," perhaps. We lived in a working-class neighborhood in Niagara Falls and my father worked at a big plant as an engineer. Then when we moved south but still in upstate New York, we started out in a shack on a farm while we looked for something better and my father worked at another chemical plant. My main memory of that time, other than the huge sandbox we got to play in which was actually part of the chicken set-up, was having German Measles and being very, very sick, being kept in the dark, along with my brother, who was sick as well, and losing some hearing in one ear.

Likely the first black children I met was in Girl Scout camp around that time, and I remember one girl got into a fight with me seemingly for no reason and scratched me. I remember the counselors said to me that the girl was underprivileged and I simply had to be sympathetic. That was the form the lessons of desegregation came in. We didn't meet any blacks or have any black guests at our house until later in the 1960s when we moved closer to the bigger city of Rochester, where my mother taught in the inner city, something that she felt she should do (leaving a private Catholic school where our tuition was free) after the riots in Rochester in those years.

Maybe that lack of association affected how we saw that early album of Cosby's -- not as being about "blackness" but about being poor -- and certainly we weren't as poor as he and his family must have been. Even so, his routine on shoes, and how there weren't sneakers, but shoes with rubber soles, and how the shoes were repaired and made to last was something we were familiar with. We had Buster Brown shoes -- "I'm Buster Brown, look for me in your shoe!" and people went to shoe repair shops more then. Keds, with their special decoder rings, were something we got when we moved from Niagara Falls to what was actually a much more poor town in those years, Penn Yan. We moved a lot in those years for my father's different jobs and I remember each time we were told that we would get something when we moved, to make us less sad and distressed about yet another wrench -- toys, sneakers, a colour TV, even, and even a dog (before that we only had a stray cat we adopted).

Actually, it seems Bill Cosby had something to do with making sneakers popular, but I don't remember this. Rubber was rationed during World War II and into the 1950s so sneakers were not mass produced, until TV made them popular with figures like James Dean:

Sneakers became footnotes in the history of the Civil Rights movement. In 1965, I Spy was the first weekly TV drama to feature a black actor—Bill Cosby—in a lead role. His character, a fun-loving CIA agent going undercover as a tennis coach, habitually wore white Adidas sneakers, easily identifiable by their prominent trio of stripes. This updated gumshoe alluded to the “sneaky” origins of sneakers, while also serving as shorthand for new-school cool

A lot has changed in the 54 years since then -- and now there's this awful case. And I have to say, the routine isn't funny any more, at least for me, and I can't bring myself to listen to it although I suppose it still survives in the form of a sound track to a fond childhood memory. Now I think I'd be mining it for clues to Cosby's later criminal behavior (or maybe it had even started then).

I did listen to some of this, which is Cosby's reflections on that album, which he wrote while attending Temple University, which went into the Hall of Fame. Apparently it's still there.

This is difference, however, as there are numerous testimonies and a sentence from a court of law for Cosby -- not to mention the condemnation in the court of public opinion in the press. So now this legacy of art only becomes something to be mined to explain why the man became a criminal despite all his scolding of black criminals.

Had none of this ever happened -- or never come to light or been prosecuted -- it might be that someone might say of Cosby's legacy with those early albums that they were an introduction for whites at that time that enabled them to see blacks as more familiar and normal, like themselves, and not through the prism of stereotypes and the news of urban riots. But now that's gone forever and will be forever challenged.

The story is in the Combating Terrorism Center's publication at West Point.

Abstract: Between 2006 and 2012, two men working on opposite sides of the struggle between global jihadis and the United States faced off in New York City. One was the founder of Revolution Muslim, a group which proselytized—online and on New York streets—on behalf of al-Qa`ida. The other led efforts to track the terrorist threat facing the city. Here, they tell the inside story of the rise of Revolution Muslim and how the NYPD, by using undercover officers and other methods, put the most dangerous homegrown jihadi support group to emerge on U.S. soil since 9/11 out of business. As the Islamic State adjusts to its loss of territory, this case study provides lessons for current and future counterterrorism investigations.

It's really worth reading in full. There's an interesting part about how specially-trained agents -- who are trained in isolation from the NYPD so they can't be traced to it -- infiltrated the terrorist group. There's reference to the careful compliance with the Handschu agreement from 1971 which is about trial of violent political groups, with the precedent set by the Black Panthers' case. The Black Panthers are indeed violent in ideology and deed, but due process is due process.

It seems the NYPD accomplished a very important mission here, putting a terrorist group out of business and trying the mastermind Younus Abdullah Muhammad, even extraditing him from Morocco. That might not have been possible if he had been located in a more strict Islamist state with more animosity to the US, although the article doesn't mention that.

The lawsuit appeared merited in some ways because it involved activity like this, as the New Yorker explained:

The police also paid attention to Muslim student groups, the lawsuit said, infiltrating several in New York City, with one detective attending a whitewater-rafting trip organized by members of the Muslim Student Association at the City College of New York, and reporting what they talked about and how many times they prayed. One man, who said that he had been paid up to $1,500 a month to work as a police informant, declared in a sworn statement that he had provided the police with phone numbers from a sign-up sheet listing people who attended Islamic instruction classes, and had been told to spy on a lecture at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, even though the police did not believe the Muslim student group there was doing anything wrong. The man, Shamiur Rahman, also said that he was told to use a strategy called “create and capture."

“I was to pretend to be a devout Muslim and start an inflammatory conversation about jihad or terrorism and then capture the response to send to the NYPD,” he said in a legal filing, later adding: “I never saw anyone I spied on do anything illegal, not even littering.”

So that wasn't like the activity described in the West Point article:

The disruption and destruction of the Revolution Muslim terror network was of critical importance. Through its violent ideology and prowess in radicalization and recruitment in the West, the network was connected to almost 20 American and British terrorists, with plots that included a September 2011 attempt to fly a remote-controlled plane strapped with explosives into the Pentagon, a March 2010 plot to kill a Swedish cartoonistﾊwho satirized the Prophet Muhammad by Colleen LaRose (aka Jihad Jane), the May 2010 stabbing of a British member of Parliament, a Christmas bomb plot in 2010 against the London Stock Exchange, the January 2009 targeting of the Chabad-Lubuvitch headquarters in Brooklyn, death threats against the creators of South Park in April 2010, and a November 2011 lone-actor bomb plot in New York City.4 One member of the Revolution Muslim network was killed in a drone strike in Yemen, where he had joined al-Qa`ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). Several attempted to leave the United States to fight for al-Qa`ida Core and al-Shabaab between 2007 and 2011, and some joined the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria during 2013 and 2014.5 All in all, there were at least 15 plots, arrests, or kinetic military actions related to members of the Revolution Muslim network worldwide.6

I guess the wisdom is to know the difference, but how much observation of the seemingly more benign activity is required, at what level, with what signals and justifications, to stay within not only Handschu but the terms of this latest lawsuit?

I just don't know.

When you see the complexities and the long-term nature of this effort, it's hard to know how the NYPD or any police department can wend their way through this:

The NYPD Intelligence Division’s effort to disrupt, dismantle, and destroy the Revolution Muslim network and radicalization hub was multi-faceted and required a sustained effort over more than six years. It is useful to examine this effort by breaking it down into five different phases: 1) Identification phase—detecting the threat/network; 2) Investigation and Penetration phase—beginning the investigation; 3) Intelligence Collection and Analysis phase—understanding the threat; 4) Crushing the Network phase—arresting and prosecuting; and 5) Loose Ends phase—pursuing members on the periphery of the network who later activated. At a time when some believe the Islamic State appears to be morphing into a virtual caliphate, it is the authors’ hope that this analysis provides lessons for future counterterrorism efforts.

And yet that's what they and other law-enforcement bodies have to do to protect civilians so that their human rights are saved, too.

The Internet is a contested space -- all kinds of forces want to rule it. Governments both liberal and authoritarian. Non-governmental organizations. Platform providers like Google and Facebook, leasers of server space like Amazon. Anarchist hackers' movements like Anonymous. Scientists, academics.

In which I return to the land of my great grandfather for the first time to cover the Dublin OSCE Conference on Internet Freedom. Except it's not an official OSCE meeting, it's a conference convened by Ireland, currently the chair-in-office, as a kind of briefing, as delegations (well, "one delegation") could not agree on the agenda.

OSCE is the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, a consensus-based multilateral organization with 56 members from Europe, Eurasia, and North America. Ireland has been active in promoting media freedom and welcoming discussion on Internet governance.

In Dublin, you feel as if the very cobblestones could talk. And they do. Tour groups continuously walked through the courtyard, and a tour guide reminded us that under oppressive British rule, Catholics could not practice their faith.

But in our New World Order of 21st Century Diplomacy, he had as much status at this conference as any script kiddie on the Twitter feed for #dcif, the hash tag or search term for "Dublin Conference on Internet Freedom". The running Twitter feed was also broadcast on to a big screen in the next conference session. Here's one twitterati complaining about another speaker:

Here's one of the Russian diplomats trying to read the old analogue way -- and calling for endorsement of the awful "International Code of Conduct for Information Security" promoted by the worst cyberattackers in the world -- Russia and China -- and currently being debated at the UN General Assembly

DAS Tom Melia led the US delegation to this non-meeting, and stressed the importance of sticking to the fundamentals of freedom of expression, a resolution the US sponsored with 24 other co-signers, but which was not discussed at this meeting due to lack of support even from Ireland. Melia also flagged the danger to Internet freedom caused by hackers, a subject brought up by only the Belarusian and other NGOs from Eastern Europe, where hackers are often supported by intelligence services.

Rebecca MacKinnon moderated the opening session and claimed that Apple had censored Ulysses. What she meant is that the Apple app store removed a *graphics comic book adaptation of Ulysses* which contained frames with pictures of nude men. Apple has a policy against nudity and removed the whole app -- their policy is based on their right to freedom of association and expression to create an acceptable public environment. This led to an outcry by users concerned this was net-nannying overreach and which ultimately led to restoration of the app. In fact, Internet freedoms triumphed all around, balance was found, and no international norms needed to be harmed in the process.

"This is one of the three young women of the punk group "Pussy Riot," two of whom are mothers of small children, who sang an anti-Putin song in a church in February. They've been in jail ever since, and still are. What do we do about this? What can we do about this? What do we do about this?" -Maximum Rocknroll The terrible risks activists are forced to take every time they fight for our rights and a better world! Shame on our governments!

Dmitry Kabak of Kyrgyzstan was one of the bloggers and tweeters who came to the conference trying to get attention to the severe obstruction of the Internet by Central Asian states. It was hard to be heard over the din of others flogging the copyleftist line.

Famous copyleftist Canadian author and activist Cory Doctorow was among those making wild claims -- if he were talking about Russia or Uzbekistan, it might make sense, but he's obsessed with what *Western* governments *might* do -- and haven't done because legislation never passes.

The tweet that had the most impact on many people came from Emin Milli, an Azerbaijani blogger and youth activist who was outspoken against Azerbaijan's policies throughout the meeting. Indeed, his tweet summarized the terrible disbalance between activists fighting literally not to be killed or jailed, and those worried how a legitimate piracy prosecution might "chill" their Internet consumption.

But the reality is that Azerbaijan is a place where beatings and jailings of bloggers are all too common, and in fact 5 journalists have been killed for their work with impunity, including by an Islamic fundamentalist.

The information that a Texas company hosted Ismayliova's blackmail tape is useful, but ultimately Texas servers aren't the problem, the oppressive Azerbaijani regime is the problem which should be tackled by states and NGOs directly.

And the tweet that stayed on stop for #dcif searches due to Twitter algorithms (i.e. most re-tweets) was one by an Icelandic activist quoting WikiLeaks supporter Birgitta Jonsdottir, who spoke on the conference panel implying she was a victim of US Dept. of Justice overreach, without explaining that she supported the hacking of a democratic state's classified files.

There was little appreciation for the realities of where the real bulk of the attacks come from -- "Eastern Europe" -- Dr. Shea said 70% of all cyberattacks in the OSCE zone come from "Eastern Europe":

At the closing session, Robert Guerra of Citizen's Lab used his prerogative as the conference rapporteur to skew the "take-homes" to be mainly about the alleged dangers to free speech from Western governments pursuing copyright prosecution or protection against cyber-attacks, although if you look at the very end I was able to do an intervention on the need for the rule of law rather than code-as-law.

Take a look at his Thursday blog on Snowden's TV question to Putin to establish several things typical of MacKey's blogs -- they are long, you have to scroll down through all the tweets and videos and links in them; they include some alternative voices, even though it's clear he shares the Times's general support and enthusiasm for Snowden; and he updates it throughout the day -- in this case, the last date stamp is at 5:11 pm. That anyone would question the nature of MacKey's blogs -- including MacKey himself! -- seems preposterous on the face of it, given that they are obviously a) always long b) always updated throughout the day and the last date stamp is shown; c) and *do* include on occasion alternative views.

To be sure, looking through all his entries, sure, you'll find short blogs, say on Iran, that date stamp in the early afternoon and aren't updated. But the center of gravity here is long, scrolling, liveblog style commentary on topics, updated regularly throughout the date. So let's see how this story developed and what happened ultimately to cut off debate.

Right away, after tweeting his NYT colleagues' news about the call-in show, MacKey establishes that he is capable of absorbing and retweeting a critical comment about the obvious thing to say about Snowden's disingenuous question: SORM (the FSB's system for monitoring communications).

MacKey retweets a critical comment from Appelbaum which essentially acknowledges the issue at play here: this is a propaganda stunt. Yeah, we get it that "RT does not equal endorsement" but everyone knows that RTs really are usually about signalling at least *validation* of a perspective if not *agreement*.

For those following RT.com's Ivor Crotty, an inveterate Kremlin apologist, this is a funny interchange, also showing MacKey's proper journalistic skepticism to this propaganda stunt -- OF COURSE Snowden's question had to be selected and approved and did not appear spontaneously when it involved the president of Russia! Croty feigns surprise.

Interestingly, MacKey later RTs Soldatov, because Soldatov now has suddenly appeared to offer a way out for all those Snowden supporters made easy by Snowden's cooptation -- why, it's "starting a national conversation" (remember how much that phrase was manipulated in our own country?). There is no doubt in my mind that MacKey shares Soldatov's take on this -- because of his next blog after the Guardian piece. I believe it's because it helped him rescue the hero Snowden out of the critique that even MacKey had to give Snowden in the first piece.

Here MacKey RT's his own piece about the Snowden/Putin show, and CC's the critics in the piece, Myroslav Petsa, the Ukrainian journalist who aptly asked -- why doesn't Snowden ask about Durov?! -- and Anne Applebaum, who dubbed it a propaganda show.

But the next day, MacKey starts a new blog, because now he sees that Snowden is "defending his part in Putin forum" at the Guardian. This is in keeping with an established pattern of the NYT on *every single* Snowden criticism that is ever covered in their newspaper, i.e. with the stories on the CIA in Geneva. They rush to get the "other side" from Snowden or his "lawyers" or supporters because they are uneasy with the criticism. This isn't just good news reporting, or they'd put that balance of *criticism* every time they run a glowing piece about Snowden including directly from Snowden himself. But it works in the other direction -- any time they are forced to cover criticism of Snowden, they rush to cancel it out with Snowden's own spin which really seem incredible.

Jeremy Duns, a well-known British author who publishes spy novels, and who had hitherto been among the most eloquent critics of Snowden, much in the vein of British journalist Edward Snowden, now had turned around and taken Snowden's Guardian op-ed piece at face value - and Soldatov's claim that it could be rescued from its dubious propaganda stunt status by claiming it "started a debate about Russian surveillance."

This pleasant tweet lets us know just how much MacKey loved this rescue effort for Snowden and also how he indicated that *he was continuing to follow the story* and that Duns' many other comments would be used in some other format, perhaps an article, or another blog.

When I saw that MacKey's blog on this second Snowden propaganda story -- his oped piece in the Guardian - was short and had NO dissenting voices, I cried foul. I pointed out that it was annoyingly one sided, and urged others in this debate to take part by leaving a comment at the NYT comments section under this article -- which I did, and it was published.

Duns believed understandably that the NYT article was posted before his debate with Tom Nichols. But as we can see from the date stamps in a Storyful provided by @StormJL, Tom Nichols first answered Jeremy only 20 minutes or so after his last tweet. Duns' last tweet cited by MacKey in the NYT blog is 3:42 pm on 18 April; MacKey's own date stamp (not update time stamp, but filing time stamp) is *4:52*. If we're going to play factology, let's play it all the way. To be sure, he had to take some time to write up the post, even if it consisted half of embeds of tweets. But even so, he simply missed -- or chose not to include -- the following deluge of tweets criticizing Duns. StormJL captures the debate where Jeremy's first tweet is 3:47 pm, and Tom Nichols replys at 4:00 pm. MacKey didn't close his story until *4:52* -- again, if we're going to play factology. Of course, when you're in another window writing and posting your story, you're not watching Twitter unless you happen to have TweetDeck running a ticker on your desktop. But let's assume MacKey just didn't go back to look at Twitter. That's likely what happend.

Even so, given that there was a DELUGE of Tweets questioning Jeremy, beginning immediately and continuing even today, from dozens of people, you have to ask: why didn't MacKey notice? Why didn't he care? My hypothesis is because he was satisfied with the way Snowden's rep was rescued, he thought he had covered it with enough "thoughtful insights" for the day, and he didn't need to think further about the hugely problematic issues brought forward by this highly manipulated active measure by Putin.

Jeremy complained that my objection wasn't fair, because MacKey's piece was posted before his discussion. But as I've illustrated, it was in fact posted an hour after Jeremy's debate began -- which isn't very long, and as I said, I allow certainly for a journalist to cease watching Twitter and writing up his story. But even so, in the genre of a liveblog that does not have to close, can always be updated, and can always add one more, with just a new update stamp, this was unfair, in my view.

I stated the OBVIOUS about MacKey's blog -- it updates throughout the day -- as it did on the first Snowden story. This one got cut off fairly early, and with no awareness of the DELUGE of complaints against Duns from what used to be his fellow critics of Snowden.

Sigh. I made no such claim that it was a "conspiracy". I made the claim that *it had happened, and wasn't consistent with his past behaviour, why, even yesterday on a similar Snowden story!

I make the statement that he has closed the story because of his own "progressive" position -- relieved at the rescuing of Snowden from total disaster -- and I stand by that. Even Luhn of the Nation and others were beginning to say "uh-oh" about Snowden, but along came Duns and Soldatov -- credible critics of the FSB and Snowden - to say, oh, it's not as bad as it looks. MacKey jumped on it.

And this is the exasperating response we can always expect from the scientist "progressives". Accusation that a critic of their bias is "lying" instead of arguing on substance. He can't acknowledge that he usually frequently updates during the day?! That this time he didn't?! He can't *take in the fact* that a huge debate about Duns had broken out while he wasn't looking -- because it was settled for him and he didn't look further? That's what this is about. It's not about me being "factually incorrect" as I've said nothing factually wrong.

So instead of saying "I didn't see that" or "thanks for pointing me to it, I'll take a look" (which is a polite kiss-off and absolutely doesn't obligate him to publish any more viewspoints) he decides to belligerently push forward with the "progressive "factology" position that always so exasperates (and deliberately so) their interlocutors. Um, yeah, there is a factological statement to be made that sure, *some* of MacKey's blogs aren't update, cut off at 1:00 pm, and never get revisisted, i.e. on Iran recently. But it's absurd to claim that's the norm. The norms is MOST are long and ARE UPDATED.

He then embellishes his scientism and "factology" with an outright misrepresentation of my perspective. I've never said anything remotely like "he should follow everyone on Twitter" and I haven't accused him of "omitting views he doesn't like" -- instead, I've said he's *cut off a story that was being debated further* -- which is true -- because he was satisfied with it as it fit his prog preconceptions -- which is also true. TRUST ME, if he had a bunch of tweets in his queue only criticizing Snowden, like Anna Appelbaum was, he'd be desperately looking for a counter-narrative (and that's how he ran Duns -- recognizing that he was a credible source as he had been a long-time critic of Snowden -- perfect!). Putin's mission was really accomplished with this one.

Well, yeah. Sure. We all get that. But in fact, you chose who to follow and you look for things that fit. And he admits that he only uses "what I find interesting or insightful". And that's the problem. There's no curiosity at the Times to go further on Snowden, and to approach these kinds of stunts with a more weathered eye. He ran the Guardian piece and its praise from Duns and Soldatov because it rescued the situation of the previous day where Snowden largely looked bad even to some former supporters.

MacKey could not have missed Tom Nichols and many others confronting Duns. It produced thousands of tweets -- more than I've ever seen on Twitter. Perhaps Mackey doesn't know that Tom Nichols, a professor at the Navy College vocal in his criticism of Snowden, and John Schindler, a professor also at the college and former NSA, also vocal in criticism, even exist. But I find that hard to believe. Even the liberal media does know that these thoughtful and credible critics exist and quote them.

Once I actually send him the links, I'd expect MacKey either not to answer, because he hates debates (many journalists, especially at the Times, where they think they are gods, hate debate and usually try to turn it into a factology quarrel in which they try to impugn the abilities or intelligence of their critics). I'd expect him if he answered again to say, either he didn't realize there was a storm of debate *15 minutes* after the last tweet he posted from Dun (and likely earlier, because probably some people instantly responded to Duns in bewilderment at his change of tune). Or I'd expect him to give a kiss-off like, thanks, didn't see it, bye.

By contrast, the Snowden TV story had 115 comments before being closed off. A Krugman column the Times loves can have thousands of comments. The Times is hugely biased and uneven in their comment cut-off policy, especially on tech hacker stories which I've fought for years -- the people doing the monitoring tend to cut off anything they can quickly, because they are overworked and have too much to cover, so they like closing windows. They also are happier to see debate stay in their corner and not challenge their own views.

So, instead of admitting that he just didn't see - or couldn't care about -- a raging debate that happened in *the whole hour after the last tweet he was using in his post* -- this is what I get -- impugning of reason and claims of falsehood when I've send him numerous links and when anyone can see the date and time stamps on his blog and anyone can see that a huge debate was underway he was not covering.

I've spent time documenting all this because I think it's important to illustrate the classic maneuvers of "progressive" NYT journalists in particular, and "progressives" in general in dealing with their critics -- they resort to name-calling, impugning of intellect, claims of falsehood, and factology -- specious and literalist invocation of facts. If you try to use that method on them -- pointing out that Duns' last tweet was time-stamped 3:47, Tom Nichols began strenuously debating him at 4:00 pm with loads of others, and MacKey's own blog was posted 4:42 pm -- that doesn't count. That is simply ignored or explained away (and even I can concede that while writing a post, you may miss something that comes while you're doing that).

But WHEN it is pointed out to you that you cut off a debate that ensued and didn't reflect it, why can't you admit it? Or say "I'll take a look". Why say the messenger got their facts wrong or worse, is lying -- when in fact everything points to the reality that you ducked out of debate at the comfort level it had for you, with the opinions you shared?

To my surprise, an account named @CoffeeBrue came alone and RT'd this. Clearly it's an account that just automatically looks for mentions of coffee and RTs them -- or even if "conscious" and not automatic as in "using a bot," it is just stupidly RTing or liking mentions without reading them. No one would RT a thing like this as an advertising account promoting a brand of coffee and coffee in general UNLESS they were doing this automatically and stupidly.

Clearly guilty, when I complained, this account removed their RT. Then, like so many arrogant asses on Twitter, they couldn't simply apologize for their THOUGHTLESSNESS getting in the middle of a tweet about someone who died, instead, they had to try to switch the blame to me and exonerate themselves. SO typical!

Um, let's start with the uncivility in inappropriately liking/RTing a "coffee mention" even if it is about someone's death!!! I don't believe he wanted to learn more about my friend's death any more than I believe in the tooth fairy. The energy put into distracting from what was clearly @CoffeeBrue's blame to start lets me know that. He adds insult to injury with this concoction -- then pretends this is about "learning" (!) Imagine, he claims even he "accidentally" unliked it although in fact that occurred after I challenged him. He tries to distract with the usual geeky online literalism of claiming I was talking about literally "following" him but as I wrote, it's about FOLLOWING ANY MENTION, not an account -- I didn't say he followed my account, and that's NOT what it is about, obviously. This is a good expose of the pernicious and nasty thinking of the geeks/online kids today.

In short, instead of saying "I'm sorry" and un-RTing and leaving it at that, this idiot has to run the entire gambit of self-justifying bullshit -- distracting about a fake literalism of something I supposedly said "wrong" about "following" (I didn't); distracting from the main point of the interchange (his inappropriate RT or like); his back-tracking and dropping those distractions and making a completely disingenuous claim about interest in my friend's life (please, we're not children here); more distraction claiming the problem is my alleged "incivility" or "ranting" instead of HIS REFUSAL TO APOLOGIZe or indeed simply say nothing. This deeply duplicitious, distracting, self-justifying, arrogant type is really the "New Man" of the Internet, it's really very common to find all these characteristics in an online argument. The Internet enables this duplicity and distraction but ultimately people themselves are to blame for their insincere thoughtlessness and shirking of responsibility -- as @CoffeeBrue is.